@IknowHim: "Literal Genesis The Hebrew grammer of Genesis shows that Genesis 1-11 has the same literary style as Genesis 12-50, which no one with any knowledge of Hebrew has any doubts is historical narrative. For example, the early chapters of Genesis use the contruction call the "waw consecutive" which is an indicator of historical sequence. Genesis 1-11 also has several other trademarks of historical narrative, such as "accusative particles" that mark the objects of verbs, and terms that are carefully defined. And the Hebrew verb grammer of Genesis 1 has a particular feature that fits exactly what would be expected if it were representing a series of past events. That is, only the first verb is perfect, while all the subsequent verbs that continue the narrative are imperfect. In Genesis 1, the first verb is "bara"(create) which is in the perfect form, while the following verbs are in the imperfect form. Parallelisms, which are characteristic of Hebrew poetry as seen in the Psalms, are absent from Genesis, except where people are cited, e.g., Genesis 4:23. If Genesis were truly poetic as some ignorant atheists have claimed, it would indeed use parallelisms throughout as in the Psalms which is does not. Christians can be certain that God does not write with a forked stylus when He describes how he created this universe. The atheists try, as did the serpent saying "Yea, hath God said..." Gen 3:1, to cast doubt on His truthfullness. Mark them as ignorant and avoid them." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, <email_address> (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in <email_address>: <quote> No big deal. Nothing is Genesis is confirmed by any physical evidence, though you might want to notice that the stories themselves, for the most part, become far more mundane after the origins stories. Allegory can be poetic or prosaic. Where does God claim to have written any of the Bible?" @nodamned: "On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:25:29 -0700, <email_address> <quote> If God wrote Genesis 1 then he either got his creation order wrong in that scripture, or he has scattered literally millions of pieces of evidence that he did it in a different sequence in the rocks of the earth. The reality is that any God there may be wrote in the fabric of the earth with his own hand, and Genesis 1 is just what it appears to be, the writing of men; ignorant, superstitious rayraymond@example.net. Probably not even Hebrews, since the oral tradition from which Genesis 1 is drawn precedes the Bible by many centuries. ## Shall God govern by the laws of nature, ## or priests by fictitious miracles? John Adams" @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> Is COMPLETELY unknown to those today including you. It is so far above today's languages as to be a language from an alien planet. There IS NO LITERAL TRANSLATION. God created the universe. He did it in seven stages. There was massive flood. There was a mixture of men and other gods. There was an Abram. You don't need to know any more. Any extra application is man made and usually pure legalism." @brianbusse: "news:<email_address> <quote> Since you don't have anything besides a 2000 year old book to back up your claims, why not use that evasion to avoid admitting a lack of real evidence?" @nodamned: "On 23 Sep 2003 04:30:27 GMT, John W <email_address> wrote: <quote> You can't present real evidence, so you resort to hypothetical evidence? And poor hypothetical evidence at that! You're damn right I wouldn't believe on the basis of such parlour tricks. Give me appropriate drugs to work with and a little time and I could convince you that you're levitating and that I'm Jesus! Bother? It's not a bother to you, it's an impossibility, since you don't HAVE any evidence. ## Miracle owes its origin to the negation of thought." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, John W <email_address> wrote in <email_address>: <quote> ... It's amazing how many so-called Christian Fundamentalists, who are intentionally ignorant of science or of other religions, presume that their critics are equally ignorant. There are a couple of places where the writer claims that God said something, but there is no confirmation of that. Please document it then. Once again, knowing that you cannot support your claim, you make it and then excuse your failure to support it by blaming your critics. When have you provided any documentation that I have refused to accept?" @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> And NONE really know what the origina was or means, NONE <url> <><><><><><><><>" @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> You know or know of some who CLAIM or actually believe they know and understand. 1. You stated recompiles. Maybe correctly and THEY didn't know." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, John W <email_address> wrote in <email_address>: <quote> I don't believe your claims about the Bible because they are contrary to physical evidence and not required by the Bible. I realize that you worship your interpretation of the Bible, but you've never offered any reason that we should." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, John W <email_address> wrote in <email_address>: <quote> I see no evidence that you have ever talked to a translator of ancient texts. All translations rely on the word and the sense in which it is used. Translations are easiest when being done from a living language with a contemporary text. Older languages are more of a challenge, but, if they have a lot of text (eg Ancient Greek, Latin), it is relatively easy to understand context and implications, particularly of idiom. Old languages with only a relatively small corpus are quite difficult to understand in the details and idioms. Yes, modern translators do think that they have puzzled out most of the Hebrew, but you will not find any translator worth hiring who would claim to be able to do a definitive translation which includes the full meaning of the text. " @dwsuiter: "The Hebrew style of writing was to present what was yet to come (a sure thing) in the past tense. Additionally, Metaphors were used extensively in the writing of scriptures by man, and are not to be interpreted literally. DW Suiter Son of God news:<email_address> <quote>" @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> You haven't one clue what I said. LXX was thhousands of years from the original. You haven't a clue about languages and their evolution. So, clueless one one we don't even hav accurate translations from Koine Greek. There is no such thing as an accurate literal translation from present day Greek to English much less the Greek of 2K years ago. NO SUCH THING. English is a Germanic language and one cannot even make an accurate literal translation from modern German to English. Most acannot even literally tranlate from 1611 English to 2000 English. Get an education before you spew theology of languages." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote in <B0acb.1623$La.1085@fed1read02>: <quote> ... Thousands? When do you think the Hebrew scriptures were assembled? It's hard to know whether you would be a good critic of this. How accurate do you want? Perfect accuracy, as you note, is impossible, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible to have an accurate understanding of what was written and translate it in a highly accurate way. Not as important as you seem to think. The problem is that you can have an accurate translation or a literal translation, but often the two are exclusive of each other. Culture changes, but not as much as you imply in your critique. I think you overstate the " @nodamned: "On 25 Sep 2003 05:40:03 GMT, John W <email_address> wrote: <quote> A bad one. I dealt with it. You're too gullible to realize THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE! Suppose he did? How do I know it's Jesus? Maybe it's Satan in disguise. How do I know he's levitating and I'm not delusional? You are so devout that you can't comprehend the scientific mind. That's how tricksters and charlatans recruit their faithful, by preying on fools who think parlor tricks are evidence. The human mind is far too easily fooled by technology for experience to be trusted as a source of knowledge. Every day people watch what they perceive as moving pictures on TV and theater screens. Not one of those pictures moves. Not one! How gullible of you! Now stop and think. Short of making you omniscient, how would God go about identifying himself to you? His primary characteristic is said to be omnipotence. Are you a competent judge of omnipotence? What's he going to do, make another universe to demonstrate his ability? Would you know another universe if you saw it? ## Miracle owes its origin to the negation of thought." @nodamned: "On 25 Sep 2003 05:35:47 GMT, John W <email_address> wrote: <quote> I TRULY do. You are the scientifically illiterate party. The best rebuttal is that even in 1931 when your book was written, the geology it proposes was recognized to be impossible. Modern advances like radiometrication and the discovery of continental drift have only emphasized the fact. Written by an author completely unqualified to write about geology for laymen too gullible to realize the fact, your text is just an exercise in desperate rationalizion. Nelson, is just rehashing G.M. Price's turn of the century bullshit, and reiterating long refuted arguments by late 19th century geologists. Why not read some recent geology from a real science book? ## The mind of the Creationist is like concrete: Mixed up and set." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, John W <email_address> wrote in <email_address>: <quote> You have repeated this comment a number of times. It's totally bogus. Can you show me where either Boeing nor Microsoft hire any scientists who would be involved in evolution as part of their scientific work? How many scientists do they have? Which ones have allowed their religious beliefs to affect their scientific work? We have a good amount of anecdotal evidence that many folks who are strongly convinced of YEC refuse to go into science and choose engineering instead, but as a technical writer, you know that engineers are not scientists." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, John W <email_address> wrote in <email_address>: <quote> Yes, you are the liar. You refuse to use your God-given brain to learn and understand His creation. You make up stories and get offended when people question them, no matter how obviously incorrect they are. Nothing about you shows you to be a Christian. Maybe we need to ask what you are doing on Christian newsgroups. I'm answering from alt.talk.creationism. Where are you answering from?" @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, John W <email_address> wrote in <email_address>: <quote> I'd ask Him to do it in a way that could be studied and have Him explain it to me. Since this hasn't happened, I'll not lose sleep over it. Which concept are you speaking of? I don't reject reality." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, John W <email_address> wrote in <email_address>: <quote> You are the one who is claiming that God made the universe just for people and that He sacrificed Himself so people can go to heaven. You are the one who denies that we share a common ancestry with other animals and even plants and unicellular organisms. That seems far more egocentric and self-regarding than the humble acceptance of physical evidence, no matter how often it shows that humans are not special, just able to talk, use tools and store knowledge outside their brains." @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> Geology 2003 There was a high water content mantle above the earth at the time of dinosaurs. There was a major upheaval of the earth wherein it was at least mostly covered with water for periods of time. This may or may not have coincided with the shift of the earth from 23 one way to 23 the other way. Some evidences are the one time tropical nature of the poles. There was ALSO a major upheaval (not necessarily water) when the huge meteor hit in what is now the gulf of Mexico. Philosophy pre-historic. When you dig a hole to fill with your excrement, be careful you don't fall in and become one with what you have created." @nodamned: "On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:48:09 -0700, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote: <quote> According to who? Bullshit. No such mantle is possible. And what saved the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps so they didn't float away and melt? How is it they record at least 50,000 years of normal annual precipitation? How did the earth's coral reef survive? Coral only grows in water of certain shallow depths. What other way? 25 million years ago, when the continets were further south. 60 million years ago. ## I like my fiction scientific, but not my science fictional." @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> Watch it. Your complete ignorance is showing. Was the Sun always (well for the past million years) as it is. Cosmic radiation and ultraviolet radiation could not have been one thousandth of what it is today for some of the prehistoric plant and animal life to exist. one O.K. numb numb. In all of your education did you not know that there is no right or left, up or down, north or south when discussing universe concepts. The earth is tilted at 23+ degrees in relation to the rotation around the sun. I assume you might have known this. At one time the earth tilted the "other way" from that rotaional axis. Di you forget that there had to be HEAT at those latitudes. Platonics is not your strong suit. meteor Well at least get an education. I have not stated one thing about any theories which have not been stated and mostly proven by scientists who have no interest in the bible whatever. Forget your "religion" if you are going to discuss science or geologic history." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote in <JbGcb.1865$La.126@fed1read02>: <quote> Essentially, yes. Please document the support for this claim. This means what for the problems under discussion? Platonics is not relevant to this. Even plate tectonics does not answer all of the questions about the warmer earth. I'm not certain how you have defended your claims." @nodamned: "On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:11:26 -0700, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote: <quote> Irrelevant. Any 'high water content mantle' at high altitudes above the poles, or even low altitudes, would freeze, since it can only receive a small amount of solar radiation. It would fall, drawing cold air down over the earth while warm air at the equator rose to replace it; moving your magic canopy northward. Inside a week you'd have the mother of all hurricanes, worldwide. The construct is unstable. Drivel. If solar radiation were reduced by a factor of a thousand, the earth's atmosphere would by lying around on the surface in liquid form at temperatures near absolute zero. Well? No, I didn't, because there is. That's the same way. Are you so ignorant that you think the tilt is always toward the sun? The tilt is only in relation to the plane of rotation. No. Until the continents of North America and Asia closed up around the arctic, the ocean there was free of ice due to the free circulation of ocean currents. Since there is no such word. I suppose you meant plate tectonics. Science obviously isn't your strong suit. I have. Better than yours too. Sheepdip. I haven't got a religion, and it's clear that you have been getting your 'scientific' education from Creationist propaganda. ## Lepus tute es; et pulpamentum quaeris!" @dwsuiter: "Hello intellectually deprived infant. DW Suiter Son of God news:<email_address> <quote> scriptures early truth. were is imperfect can Of the the stylus over ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ <url> <><><><><><><><>" @Sastaretsi: "news:<email_address> <quote> The story of Genesis probably existed but was rewritten and adapted to meet Judaist doctrine, between the 6th and the 3rd century BC. Was obviously copied from Canaanite and Persian sources. Genesis is a myth, a theology." @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> Re-read what was said, idiot. What holds the ozone layer? do you have any idea of the mantles that exist NOW/ No of course not. You are just an uneducated buffoon trying to play educated. Who said "WATER" That's what I said except you can't read because your religion is in the way. Get an education and look at the "scientific" theories and necessities for certain things to have occured on the earth, having NOTHING, NOTE NOTHING to do with creationism of Christianity. And?????????? Oh! go study geology without your assinine religion or some mediocre teacher's atheist religion getting in the way. Don't try to get a job in the oil industry finding oil (as I have) because the search is based on what I have said. I have made hard fact money with this. What have you done ecxcept blow out of your butt some gas. No, I just go with hard facts as we know them today. I have not stated why or how some things occured, just that they seem to have occured and modern geology and oil exploration is consistant with those theories. They may change, but that is what REAL applied science deals with today. I have NO religious NOTIONS about geology. I do NOT go along with the simplistic interpretations of Genesis." @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA You are so stupid it is absolutely laughable. You haven't the slightest idea what I said and yet you make comments." @nodamned: "On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:47:40 -0700, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote: <quote> I am quite familiar with the various vapour canopy theories that Creationists have been peddling for decades. Don't try and pretend that you have some new theory. ## You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge!" @nodamned: "On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:45:59 -0700, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote: <quote> The ozone layer isn't water. It's freezing point is far lower. We have a far better idea than you do. We know how to spell plate tectonics. YOU DID! "There was a high water content mantle above the earth" you claimed. Or reality. It's just as well you put the word scientific in quotes there. Working with 'platonics'??? The hell it is. P.T. Barnum made a lot of money peddling fake science too. Cite please. Put up or shut up. ## There is no worse lie than a misunderstood truth." @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> Read VERY careful. Study VERY careful. All of this is way over your head. All you can do is spout your religious views. On the other hand, forget it. You are incapable of learning." @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> You are or have been in the oil exploration business? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA" @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> of No, you are not familiar with them. No, it has nothing to do with any creationist theories. As a matter of fact it flies in their face." @nodamned: "On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:51:15 -0700, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote: <quote> Quit posturing gomer! You're pretending to have some esoteric insight, but we strongly suspect you're just trying to evade embarassment at yet another goof along the lines of 'Platonics' and the earth being tilted 'the other way'! Since you are posturing and posing instead of teaching, how would you know? ## His trouble ain't so much ignorance, ## as knowing so many things that ain't so!" @nodamned: "On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:53:15 -0700, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote: <quote> I know how the search for oil is conducted. It deosn't involve half-baked theories about vapour canopies. I asked you for a cite. Bet or fold... ## Amphora coepit institui; currente rota cur urceus exit?" @nodamned: "On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:55:35 -0700, "Iconoclast" <email_address> wrote: <quote> Still posing are you? We're all supposed to be in awe of this mysterious expertise you coyly won't reveal. In the light of your previous gaffes, we aren't likely to be impressed. ## Cap'n! The twit shields canna take much more o' this!" @nospam: "news:FTLcb.10139$<email_address> <quote> much holes meet A myth and a theology are not the same thing. Obviously I agree that it is a story and in general with David Olridge's comments in another reply. I never believed that it was to be taken as literal history. It was created (no pun intended) through various oral and later written traditions by folks just trying to understand their world. If one believes in God, one can say that Genesis is just that and have no real issue. Folks with no science trying to explain how their God created the world. However, I disagree with folks that attempt to say that the failures of Genesis as history show that God does not exist or is merely a fairy tale. The Bible as a whole and God are potentially mutually exclusive. God could exist even if the most popular book about that God is to some degree fiction. Figinn" @nospam: "news:<email_address> <quote> Wow. Two people agreeing on a rather moderate (or middle-of-the-road) opinion on Usenet. Almost boggles the mind ... hehe. Figinn" @mmman_90: "news:HvXcb.1987$<email_address> <quote> Tom: I don't know but if you are, using the "science" you have presented here, you are still exploring :-)." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, Aaron <email_address> wrote in <email_address>: <quote> [snip to where he is responding to me] ... No, it has not. On some occasion that might be true, but the general sweep of the stories is not consistent with the physical evidence. Certainly there was no global flood as reported, the creation stories have nothing to do with science, and the story of the Tower and language is inconsistent with our knowledge of human history. ... How do you _know_ this? What evidence leads to that claim? Many different people have made claims on behalf of various gods. None have ever provided any evidence to support their claims." @mmman_90: "news:TmQcb.1966$<email_address> <quote> You to Tom: Bullshit! If you are finding oil, using "platonics", I want to know about it. Please tell me how this is done." @mmman_90: "news:roQcb.1967$<email_address> <quote> Tom: Translation: "I'm an ignorant fundie, caught in a lie and now I'll try to bluff my way out". Your problem is you're too stupid to bluff your way out. HA HA HA." @IknowHim: "<quote> __________________________________________________ Sorry, Brian, Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative regardless of what your sources say. Remember all the experts in Isreal and Judea did not recognize the Lord Jesus Christ when He came and they had all the OT which told them. they just refused to believe it." @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, <email_address> (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in <email_address>: <quote> What evidence do you have to support this claim? How do you explain all of the evidence that disproves the historical elements of each of these stories? Whether that is correct or not, the evidence that proves that your interpretation of Genesis is invalid is of a different, testable, physical sort. Until you show that you understand why your claim is considered false, you cannot even try to defend it." @IknowHim: "<quote> _____________________________________________________________ More importantly, Brian, why do you want it not to be historical narrative? What is your alternative?" @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, <email_address> (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in <email_address>: <quote> The evidence already has shown that Genesis 1-11 cannot be a historical narrative. The question is whether one can still get spiritual sustenance out of these stories. Most Christians and Jews agree that the spiritual effect of these stories does not rely on historical accuracy. A small minority of folks who claim to be Christian, reject the evidence that these stories are not historical, but cannot provide a shred of evidence to support their peculiar interpretation of the Bible. Allegory. "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis" @Libertarius: "<quote> ===>That is just a big, fat LIE! NOTHING in Genesis is historical, there is NOTHING about Jesus in the Hebrew portion of the Bible, and Jesus "Christ" never came. There was a MAN called Yeshua (Jesus) who was originally believed to have been "a man attested...by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him." (Acts 2:22). Through the speculations of the man from the Gentile city of Tarsus, the one called Saul/Paul, that MAN was transformed into a DEITY, called CHRIST (Greek CHRISTOS), as was customary among Romans to declare their rulers (emperors) "GODS" or divine beings. L." @Libertarius: "<quote> ===>Why would you want two contradictory fairy tales to be "historical"??? ===>There are hundreds of other creation stories from cultures around the world. NONE of them is "historical". L." @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> Only the total idiot does not know they are still exploring. Are you saying that you have all the answers and are not exploring?" @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> of this to for NOTHING survive? from there around rotational Platonics because History is paramount. Knowledge of what was is paramount. I thought I might explain the meaning of history for the retarded Atheist religionists. Is your name "bullshit"? Very interesting name Tom Bullshit." @mmman_90: "news:vX8eb.43795$<email_address> <quote> Tom: No, I didn't make the claim that I was in the oil exploration business. What I said was, if you use the same science in the oil exploration business that you show here, then you haven't found any oil. Is that clear enough for you or do you require idiot's training?" @mmman_90: "news:7_8eb.43804$<email_address> <quote> message time in the and didn't of earth 25,000 much poles. Tom: Actually, what you post is bullshit and anyone can tell it by reading your posts. Are you going to answer the question, "Mr. Oil Explorer" or are you going to continue to sling bullshit?" @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> presented business. business for No, you have found nothing and know nothing. All the oil companies I have consulted for have found massive oil deposits So shove it up your whatever , Idiot." @mmman_90: "news:KMteb.44577$<email_address> <quote> <email_address> Tom: I'm sure that the oil companies found deposits of oil and I'm also sure they didn't use any of your science that you have presented here. You can easily prove me wrong by supplying us with the science that you used and how the companies used this science to find their oil. You could start with "platonics"." @nodamned: "On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:06:52 GMT, "Brian Ceccarelli" <quote> An interesting rationalization, which sounds reasonable up to a point, but you're forgetting something. The fundamentalist doesn't buy the idea that Genesis is Moses writing poetry, he wants to believe it's Moses taking dictation from God. Ah, no, there your explanation falls off the rails. Genesis 1 describes the sky as a solid dome with windows in it, seperating the earth from a body of water that was the source of rain when the windows were opened. The dome was supported by pillars over a round, flat earth and the pillars rested on foundations. The whole deal looked rather like a garden gazebo. Remember that there was no flood? Well this one is! Truthful how? In proposing that God created? Maybe that far. No further, Good ol' Gleason and his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties! A man who never heard of Occam and his razor. Any explanation, no matter how far fetched, is to be preferred to the simplest explanation if it makes the Bible out to be true. Well, in the eyes of the gullible and devout anyway. The sky still isn't a solid dome, and there was no flood. Oh, and in all likelihood, Moses didn't write the Pentateuch either... ## Both read the Bible day & night, ## But thou readst black where I read white." @386sx: "Brian Ceccarelli writes: [...] <quote> False. Violets are violet. (According to you, anyways.) If you wanted to be truthful you could have made a truthful rhyme and it would still be a poem. Even if the information was given to you through divine inspiration you could still be poetic and truthful simultaneously. (How did Moses know about the Creation?) Some roses are still red though. (So not necessarily false, so we can give Moses a break on this one - assuming he was an historical character and not a part of the poem himself.) If these statements are false, they cannot be true, plain and simple. You're writhing and squirming against logic and common sense just so's you can have the Bible come from God. (Unless I'm mistaken.) IIRC, he does believe this to be the case. Maybe you would be okay, but the literature would still be false. Of course you can't treat it as an historical narrative - because you think it's false! On the other hand, if I treat your article as a poetic narrative, then everything you have said is true. [...] "He affirmed that only in man we had the beatings of the heart, that the left side of the body was colder than the right, that men have more teeth than women." John Tyndall" @IknowHim: "Nice writing and nice try Brian, but no cigar. However, yom is defined as a solar day in Genesis 1; "and the evening and the morning were day one." "and the evening and the morning were the second day" "and the evening and the morning were the third day" Do you think that Elohim made a mistake here? Perhaps He hould have been more lear and said " <quote>" @IknowHim: "Nice writing and nice try Brian, but no cigar. However, yom is defined as a solar day in Genesis 1; "and the evening and the morning were day one." "and the evening and the morning were the second day" "and the evening and the morning were the third day" Do you think that Elohim made a mistake here? Perhaps He should have been more clear and said "evening and morning were day one ages of millions of years" That would have cemented the Day-Age definition wouldn't it? Then all the evolution, death, pain and suffering would have room before sin entered through Adam's disobedience? <quote>" @david: "In (followup set to) alt.talk.creationism, <email_address> (Michael) wrote in <email_address>: <quote> Nonsense. You have completely misrepresented PE. Please learn some science so it could be a little bit of fun to spar with you. [balance of nonsense deleted]" @icono: "news:iFCfb.20922$<email_address> <quote> newspaper, "irregardless" ????? Careful with your criticism of literacy." @mmman_90: "news:OdDfb.47020$<email_address> <quote> a genre Walt Kings ignorant. Tom: Evidently you haven't looked at a recent version of a dictionary." @nodamned: "On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:35:26 GMT, "Brian Ceccarelli" <quote> I hold no such belief. Nor do I hold a belief that God does exist. To you. It matters to the fundie. No, the best we can do is attempt to guess the genre. Don't kid yourself that we can even be sure of our translation, let alone get inside the heads of those wrote it. Sure. But we have a far better comprehension of recent genres than we do of ancient ones. And even then, given the very nature of Hebrew, we cannot help but insert our understanding, (or misunderstanding) into what we are reading. In effect, if the text is in Hebrew, all exegesis is eisegesis. It has to be. "Irregardless"? "Literarily"? Very helpful if rationalization and bibliolatry is your goal. The Bible is never, ever in error in Archer's eyes, which makes for some of the most desperate stretches of logic and hopeful improbabilities you'll encounter anywhere. Not ancient Hebrew. And there you err. But not as much as real scholars. I don't pay all that much attention to any theologian. They tend too much to build castles on air. Fine constructs of logic without foundations. I prefer historians and archaeologists for my understanding. See if you can sell those grammatical points to a professor of ANCIENT Hebrew. You really believe Moses wrote it? So, bottom line, in your view all Genesis 1 really say is "God created the earth, sun and stars, and all the earth's life forms"? The repeated mention of this happening on that day and the other happening on another day was not intended to present a timeline at all? Or do you mean that the timeline was just a poetic device inserted by the writer and not part of whatever divine inspiration he may have had? ## Grammatici certant et adhuc sub iuduce lis est." @nodamned: "<quote> It's still wrong. irregardless, adverb Etymology:probably blend of irrespective and regardless Date:circa 1912 nonstandard : REGARDLESS usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that *there is no such word.* There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. ## Since vegetarians eat vegetables, beware of humanitarians" @icono: "news:<email_address> <quote> point, if one Yep. Another one that actually thinks because a dictionary has a word, that it is a viable word used by literate people. I referred to literacy, Shit, dork, twat, bubu, nigger and gay are in the dictionary. Literate people know differently." @nodamned: "On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 02:30:45 GMT, <email_address> (Michael) wrote: <quote> How do you know? There is no such thing as a fundie evolutionist. Fundamentalism is a Christian religious phenomenon, FUNDAMENTALISM A movement in various Protestant bodies which began at the turn of the 19th-20th cent. and developed after the 1914-18 War, esp. in the U.S.A. Apparently in reaction against evolutionary theories and Biblical criticism of the 19th cent. Fundamentalism espouses the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, a substitutionary theory of the Atonement, and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ. The term 'fundamentalism', however, derives from a series of 12 tracts entitled _The Fundamentals_, of which the first appeared c. 1909. They were written by eminent evangelical leaders and widely distributed in the English-speaking world with the aid of American money. In 1919 the _World's Christian Fundamentals Association_ was founded; it organized rallies in many Ameriocan cities and during the following decade nearly all the Protestant Churches in the U.S.A. were divided into Fundamentalist and Modern What has my opinions on ancient Hebrew got to with Christianity? I'll wear the label of religiophobe if you like. I fear all fanatical religious belief, be it Christian, Muslim, or whatever. No, in other words YOU can't fully understand what its authors meant. Nor can anyone else. But everyone is only partially literate in ancient Hebrew. It's not like reading English. The nature of the criticism went way over your head didn't it? Hint: it had nothing whatever to do with either Genesis or Kings. Inane giggling from the peanut gallery, backed up by no cogent argument... Well let's see if I can get the point across with an example: GDSNWHR That's not Hebrew, it's an English sentence written in the Hebrew manner, with no vowels, and no spaces between the words. First the reader has to guess what vowels to insert, and where to put them. Here I'll do that for you, but remember the reader of ancient Hebrew has no such help. GODISNOWHERE Now perhaps you can make out what the sentence might be saying. It could be GOD IS NOW HERE or it could be GOD IS NOWHERE. Which is it? You have to guess. In other words you can't help inserting your own understanding into what you're reading. Another person might with complete honesty take another meaning entirely. The Hebrew languge in written form is inherently ambiguous. See above. You might also try it for yourself. I can give you a short passage from the Bible, just half a dozen words in Hebrew, plus the dictionary definitions of those words. From that do you think you could discern the meaning? The scholars to whom I refer have no strong opinions on the subject of evolution. Nor do they precede every sentence with silly giggles. That can be proved. It is an argument with foundations. I post only in alt.bible, alt.religion and alt.religion.apologetics God is a liar? Have you? He's describing YOU Michael. There is no scientific theory of creation. An erroneous one. The earth did not exist before the stars. Trees did not exist before fish. Birds did not exist before beasts of the field. I said nothing about millions of years. The order given in Genesis 1 is wrong. ## Shall God govern by the laws of nature, ## or priests by fictitious miracles? John Adams" @mmman_90: "news:<email_address> <quote> the it's that God this Tom: I wouldn't say that it is something to be proud of. Tom: Sorry Burt, evolution is science. Tom: Not according to Merriam-Webster's. Which dictionary do you use? the religious Tom: Probably because there is no scientific theory in history that has been denied more by religionists than evolution. Well, that is since the Copernican theory. You have heard of that haven't you, Burt? literature one get Tom: Tee hee hee, a simple reading of the bible will tell him this. It is unfortunate that you haven't read the bible. Tom: Tee hee hee, evolution does not address the beginnings of life although I can tell you that the "god" of the Hebrew bible didn't start anything. Never before in the history of mythology has there been a god that was so stupid. Tom: Tee hee hee, watch out, after "IOW" comes the lie. By the way Burt, does your dictionary have a definition for 'Christophobe'? If so, I would like to see it and a reference to your dictionary. time. Tom: They do? What specific instances of this can you give? Tom: :-). No other words needed. ancient some improbabilities somehow <snip remaining tee hee hee's>" @nodamned: "On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:08:13 GMT, <email_address> (Michael) wrote: <quote> They aren't the propagandists, they're the dupes of the propagandists. Gullible Christians who don't realize that they're being lied to by the likes of Morris, Slusher, Gish and their ilk. And Genesis doesn't mention Christianity except in the fevered imagination of some fundamentalists. Where's your proof it does? That's evolution. There is no Scientific Theory of Creation. The very term is an oxmoron. The Creator can be claimed to be involved in any occurance anywhere and at any time. There's no way that contention can be disproved. Of course the same applies to Leprechauns, there's no way their involvement can be denied either. If your theory posits that, it is by definition NOT a scientific theory. Calling Christ a liar? Never. A mythic deity can't lie, only his inventors can. Christ could no more tell a lie than Sinbad the Sailor or any other fictional character. At this point, but we shall see. No, the 'he' referred to is Satan. But what does it mean 'will let'? Good for you! You've got one right. Remember this isn't a test on theology, it's a (Elizabethan) English test. Your answer looked suspiciously like it came from a reference. Now remember, theology isn't the issue here, it's the meaning of the words. What does "considering the end of their conversation. " mean? Correct. That's two right. Correct again! Good for you, many Christians completely misunderstand that one. But again, did you know that before you looked up that quote? That's all you had to say Mike. That's a correct answer, but it was buried in the middle of a long extract from a reference. Now if you were just reading the KJV, would you have understood 'prevent' to mean 'precede'? And without looking it up, what would you have assumed 'secure' meant? Your reference is correct. I don't think you should be getting any credit though. In other words, rotsa ruck! So, seven out of nine so far, but the test was supposed to be of your comprehension of Elizabethan English, not your ability to look things up in a reference. ## HECK: Where people go if they don't believe in Gosh!" @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, <email_address> (Michael) wrote in <email_address>: <quote> ... The lies include, but are not limited to: Claims that the Bible is a source of scientific information, even when the physical evidence contradicts the claims in the Bible. Claims that the interpretation of the Bible by these religious teachers are better than evidence gathered during the course of science. Claims that the person interpreting the Bible is not interpreting it, but is using the clear meaning. Claims that there is such a thing as creation science. Claims that there was a global flood during the time of Noah. Claims that 'macroevolution' cannot happen. Claims that there is any scientific evidence that supports a young universe, young earth, or recent creation of humans on earth. Claims that humans cannot share a common ancestry with other organisms on earth. Claims that misrepresent the evidence that has been gathered in the course of science. Claims that say or imply that scientists are being dishonest in gathering their data and developing the hypotheses to fit the data. Claims that the Bible is never wrong in its statements of science. Claims that the Bible shows a knowledge of modern cosmology. The proofs of all of these lies and more are called evidence. The so-called Christians who claim that there is creation science, lie about the evidence and encourage their acolytes to remain ignorant lest they be contaminated with knowledge. You are one of those ignorant acolytes, which is why you are unable to understand how wrong creation science is and how dishonest the purveyors of these lies are. As long as you insist on remaining ignorant, you will continue to hide the truth from yourself and you will remain enslaved to the lies of these religious frauds. ... Only someone with no knowledge of history or religion would try to claim that Christianity was invented by the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures. Those scriptures were incorporated into the Bible, they were not written as the Christian Bible. You will continue to repeat your erroneous understanding of evolution until you repent of your dishonesty and lies. Learn something. <snip rest> Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn. - St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"" @mmman_90: "news:<email_address> <quote> religious Tom: The proof of their lying is in their work. Christianity? Matthew. Tom: Tee hee hee, the Old Testament is the bible of the Hebrews, you idiot, and they aren't Christian. is >yours? Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt, being an ignorant fundie Christian thinks the Old Testament is Christian in origin. Typical arrogant and ignorant fundie comment. is Tom: Tee hee hee, are you ever going to learn to spell "definition"? There is no scientific theory of creation. Get over it, Burt, there isn't one! Cration Tom: Tee, hee hee, how clever, Burt, is this the best you can do? Tom: Tee hee hee, nor is there any evidence for the creator. Tom: Tee hee hee, because by definition it isn't. What part of that do you not understand Mr. Tee hee hee? How old are you? Tom: He is probably only posting from one of those groups, moron, why don't you trim the post to the group from which you post and see how many responses disappear. You do understand the principal , don't you? people are that time. he the in the <snip all responese where Burt cut and pasted>" @info: "Isn't the Bushmanland South Africa enough evidence of Creation?? Please comment Elma news:<email_address> <quote> yours? is observed," @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, "Bushmanland Crafts & Tours" <email_address> wrote in <bnos74$nj3$<email_address>>: <quote> No. I have no idea why you would think that it would be. Do you have some specifics that you had in mind here or are you just trying to advertise your website?" @tiffirgrREVERSE: "news:bnos74$nj3$<email_address> <quote> Actually I posted a rather substantial piece regarding your site in response to a post of yours. You never bothered to answer it. Raymond E. Griffith propagandists. conclusion there" @nodamned: "On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:45:05 GMT, <email_address> (Michael) wrote: <quote> Well David Jensen provided you with a good list. To those enumerated I would add : The claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes evolution, a lie repeated over and over by the Creationist propaganda mills for decades despite their having been shown in meticulous detail that the 2nd law in no way forbids evolution. Claims that evolution denies God and is some sort of atheistic conspiracy. Claims that evolution is not mainstream science, but an abberant scientific heresy of some sort. Claims that one cannot believe in evolution and be a 'True Christian', whatever that is. Claiming spurious academic credentials from correspondence school diploma mills and unaccredited bible colleges. Publishing tracts on subjects about which they are completely unqualified to pontificate. The commonest example of this is tracts on biology and paleontology by Dr. So-and-so or Professor Somebody that carefully forget to mention that they are professors of theology or hold their doctorates in a scientific discipline unrelated to the subject. Something you delude yourself reads to suit your theology. Would lead YOU to that conclusion. But that's just the kind of theological masturbation I was referring to. You insert into the Hebrew the meaning you think is there, and the language is so ambiguous it submits to this. "Scriptural evidence is overwhelming, as to the use of trees as symbolic of men and supernatural beings. Christ is called the Tree of Life by implication. The Lord likened Himself to a "green fir tree" Hosea 14:8. A tree has a trunk and limbs-as do men and angels. The word "ets" (#6086) is used for tree, " That the kind of eisegesis you're on about? Well you can't be denied, for Hebrew encourages the reader to read what he wants to in most any passage. But don't be surprised when someone else reads what HE wants to hear into the same passage, and you can't deny him any more successfully. The "Christian Bible"? What's that? I only know of the New Testament and the Old Testament. You're changing the subject. Your statement was that evolution is a hypothesis that life evolved without a creator. In fact a creator could have been intimately involved. Science is concerned only with what happened, not whether God might have been involved. There is no natural event that can be shown not to involve God. There is no scientific theory of Creation. You've been challenged to quote it or cite it repeatedly, and you never do. It's vapourware. True. But then there's no basis for your theories about God either. Ever heard of falsifiability? Trolls initiate posts. I just respond to posts that lie. Like yours. No, just warning innocents away from lies and deceits, especially those of Creationists. You're tapdancing up a storm but it isn't working. What did the word 'let' mean to an Elizabethan? Never mind if the translation is correect or not. You claimed literacy in Elizabethan English. Now what does that word mean? Because Gil et al are about the meaning of the scripture, not about the meaning of the Elizabethan English words. And that's wrong isn't it? In modern English we would say "the host thought they were secure" but the Elizabethan just said "the host was secure" meaning the same thing. It today's English that would mean that they WERE secure. No you didn't. Or in your case by studying in the wrong places. Now what does "considering the end of their conversation. " mean? No references this time. Just your comprehension of Elizabethan English. ## We use religion like a bus, riding it only when its going our way!" @david: "In alt.talk.creationism, <email_address> (Michael) wrote in <email_address>: <quote> ... There is no scientific theory of creation. You know it does not exist. That is why you never provide a reference to one when you are asked for it. ... Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 146, "forum_name": "alt.religion.christian.biblestudy.20140905.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.religion.parquet'}